LAWS 4439
European Union Law · 1 instructor on record · 2 sections
Boston College's ratings are bunched at the top — the median instructor averages about 88 out of 100 on the raw scale, and 44% of them clear 90 — so a raw score cannot separate anybody. Every figure here is ranked against BC classes and that rank is re-expressed out of 100, which is what turns a raw 88 — the middle of the university — into a figure that says where somebody actually stands. On this scale 77 is the median, 84 the top quarter and 91 the top tenth. Workload is then an adjustment on top of that, worth nothing at all for an ordinary one. Lighter work than 22% of BC classes.
The class itself, averaged across everyone who taught it — who taught it is the board below.
How is this worked out?
That is what a student picking a section is actually choosing between: the board carries each instructor's own score for this class, and the score above is the class averaged across all of them.
Boston College's own “intellectually challenging” question. It is not a measure of difficulty, grading or workload.
How is this worked out?
Boston College's own “intellectually challenging” question for this class only — students answer it positively about courses that stretched them, so it measures intellectual challenge and NOT grading, workload or quality. Almost every BC class scores high on it, which is why it is shown as a rank rather than a score.
One of Boston College's five workload bands, not a number of hours. Higher means more work, not worse.
How is this worked out?
Boston College reports workload for this class only as one of five bands, not as a number of hours, and it does not publish what the bands mean — so this site will not translate it into hours. Higher means more work, which is not the same as worse.
This course examines the legal order of the European Union and its institutions, with particular focus on their capacity to respond to geopolitical challenges that the project of European integration is facing in the twenty-first century. Since the end of World War II, an increasing number of European states have been engaged in one of the most innovative experiments in government in the modern world. Seemingly willing to relinquish some of the sovereignty they had so fiercely fought to defend during much of their history, these states have set in place supranational legal, institutional and political mechanisms aimed at integrating their economic and political systems. To an important extent, that effort has been successful. The EU is today the largest trading block in the world and it remains, in many ways, a laboratory of institutional and political experimentation. At the same time, the Union is facing profound crises, some thought not all of its own making. Russias invasion of Ukraine is testing the very foundations of EU integration and is forcing a revival of long-shelves projects for a European common military. The policies of the second Trump administration are adding to the tremendous pressure on the EU to reposition itself on the global stage. That pressure is all the greater after Brexit demonstrated that the process of European integration is not unidirectional. Meanwhile, the forces of authoritarian populism remain at work in the EU. Democratic erosion not only in Central and Eastern Europe (Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia) but across the EU poses deep challenges to EU constitutional doctrines, which were created in the context of a common market but now have to withstand authoritarian pressure on the structures of EU member states. Like the financial and refugee crisis more than a decade ago, these new challenges, alongside climate change, the broader energy independence crisis, migration, the transformations of the knowledge economy and AI are testing the adequacy of the EU institutional structure. The interplay between national and supranational legal orders remains under intense scrutiny and in need of theorizing. The stakes for the EU and the world economic and political structures could not be higher. Law is at the center of these debates, now as in the previous stages of European integration. This is an exciting time to study EU law. No textbook purchase required, the instructor will distribute reading materials. All students are welcome regardless of previous exposure to international or comparative law subjects. Exam is 7-hour take-home. Please feel free to email the instructor with any questions (perju@bc.edu).
| Instructor | Curve | Easiness | Challenge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vlad PerjuLaw Provisional | 7588 raw · 2 records | 68−2 to the score | 50th |
There is no ranking to read here: Vlad Perju is the only instructor with evaluation records for LAWS 4439, so the number is a record, not a position. It rests on 2 records, which is thin — read it as provisional.
Also taught by Vlad Perju
5 other classesOther LAWS classes
All of them| Class | Instructors | Course score |
|---|---|---|
| LAWS 2110Critical Perspectives: Law, Context, and Professional Identity | 3080 records | 66 |
| LAWS 8667Legal Practice Externship | 251 records | 91 |
| LAWS 2150Law Practice 1 | 1032 records | 84 |
| LAWS 2155Law Practice II | 1032 records | 83 |
| LAWS 8130Advanced Legal Research | 829 records | 92 |
| LAWS 2190Professional Responsibility | 926 records | 74 |
The line
All 13 items · means across 2 recordsBars are ranks, not raw scores. Nothing here is graded good or bad.
What each item asks
- Explains Clearly
- The instructor was effective at creating an understanding of difficult subject matter.
- Available
- The instructor was available for help outside of class.
- Motivating
- The instructor motivated me to do my best work.
- Sparks Interest
- The course stimulated my interest in the subject matter.
- Organized
- The course was well organized.
- Clear Goals
- The learning objectives for the course were clear.
- Useful Later
- What I learned is applicable beyond this course.
- Assignments
- Assignments and exams contributed to my learning.
- Fast Feedback
- I received feedback on my work in a timely manner.
- Useful Feedback
- The feedback I received on my work was meaningful.
- Workload
- How much work the course took outside class, on Boston College's five-band scale — the band boundaries are not published, so this is not a number of hours.
- Challenge
- The course was intellectually challenging.
- Attendance
- Attending class was necessary to do well in this course.
Why these numbers are curved
Both the number and the bar are the rank against every comparable record we hold, printed back out of 100. BC's questions all have a median around 4.5, so on the raw scale every cell here would read in the high eighties and every bar would be nearly full — thirteen numbers that tell you nothing. Each cell prints its raw BC figure and its percentile underneath, so nothing is hidden by the transform. Every bar is one ink colour — nothing here is graded green or red. The hatched bars are not ratings at all: a higher number on either describes a different course, not a better one.
Game log
2 sections · newest first| Instructor | Term | Sec | Instr | Course | Work |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vlad Perju | Fall 2024 | 01 | 84 | 76 | 60 |
| Vlad Perju | Fall 2022 | 01 | 92 | 81 | 60 |
How to read this board
Instructors are ranked on their record in this class only, never on their average across everything they teach. Scores are out of 100 — Boston College's 1–5 agreement scale, ×20, the way these numbers were printed for years. Workload is BC's own five-band figure, not a number of hours, and is shown as a rank. A dash means the question was not reported, and is never a zero.